September 15, 2026 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered a complaint about accuracy, context, attribution, and language in an October 2, 2025, article published by the National Post. Council dismissed the majority of the complaint, and dismissed one part of the complaint with reservation.

The investigative feature reported that dozens of doctors who were practicing outside of their previous jurisdictions had “left behind disciplinary histories involving troubling medical care or personal conduct, or alleged misconduct.” The article described the journalism’s investigative methods and results, and included detailed histories of several doctors both inside and outside of Canada.

Ali Cadili, one of the doctors identified in the piece, filed a complaint with the NNC alleging that the article’s overall framing was inaccurate, and that the published statements misrepresented his professional conduct based on a decision by the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

The article reported that the complainant had been found to have “‘caused or permitted’ advertising for a Regina-based private clinic [and that] he was allowing or causing the clinic to use ‘remedies, treatments or devices’ that weren’t accepted as being therapeutically useful for patients, according to the disciplinary panel.”

The complainant took issue with a number of aspects of the piece, with particular focus on the following issues:

1. Accuracy: The complainant alleged that the article inaccurately framed and described the nature of the disciplinary matter against him as causing harm to his patients in the course of his medical practice. For example, the complainant disputed the headline, which reads, “Bad Practice: Dozens of doctors jump borders to leave troubling pasts behind.” The complainant explained that the findings against him were not issued in relation to his capacity as a physician, but rather as a business owner. The complainant noted that there was no malpractice or “bad medicine.” In his submission to the NNC, he stated, “There was no harm to an individual or customer of the wellness center at any time!” He noted that his “medical practice record was unblemished.”
   
2. Accuracy: The headline and overall framing of the article, the complainant alleged, implied that he left Canada to avoid scrutiny. The complainant objected to this implication, noting that he had maintained a license and practice for years in Canada following the disciplinary matter and had decided to move to the United States for career reasons, rather than to avoid scrutiny. He noted that the timeline of his practicing elsewhere supported his view, and noted, “[The disciplinary matter] had zero impact on my practice, and I continued to hold a full unrestricted license in Alberta.”
   
3. Accuracy: The complainant disagreed that the article focused on the initial charges, as issued by the College in June 2019, rather than the College’s findings and agreement for resolution, which was issued in 2022.
   
4. Accuracy: The complainant stated the accusations related to the treatment involving the use of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber were withdrawn.
   
5. Language: The complainant stated the article inaccurately referred to the “wellness centre” he owned as a “clinic,” and the individuals who received services as “patients,” when instead they were “customers.” He noted that there were no “doctor-patient relationships,” as the  centre was not a “medical facility.” He also took issue with the use of the word “treatment” instead of “therapy,” noting that the services provided were not, and were never intended to be, medical treatments.
   
6. Context: The complainant alleged a lack of context in that the suspension of his license was “retroactive” and that he was, therefore, not suspended or prevented from practicing in Saskatchewan. He argued that he chose not to renew his license prior to when the College investigated the matter, as he had already moved out of province.
   
7. Context: The complainant alleged that the article gives readers a “false notion that Doctors can just jump across jurisdictions and have a fresh start practicing medicine.” The complainant noted that when a physician “moves from one jurisdiction to another within North America, their entire practice history is reviewed.”
   
8. Attribution: The complainant alleged that quotes he provided for the article were incomplete. The complainant also took issue with the quoted statements from Gary Walker, noting that the lawyer’s connection to his case is unclear and unfairly misrepresents the situation.

In addition to the above concerns, the complainant alleged that the journalists were inappropriately intrusive in seeking comment from him.

The news organization responded to the complainant’s concerns, largely by referring to the documents published by the College about his case and to the complainant’s own responses. With respect to the particular concerns raised, the news organization provided the following responses.

1. Accuracy: In response to the complainant’s concern that the charges were laid against him as a business owner, rather than in his capacity as a doctor, the news organization noted that the charges to which he admitted were for “unprofessional conduct,” and were laid against his medical license, rather than the business. They noted that the piece did not use the term “malpractice” in relation to his case.
   
2. Accuracy: In response to the concern about the implication that the complainant changed jurisdictions to avoid scrutiny, the news organization responded by noting that the timeline did not appear to show anything beyond the fact that he was disciplined in Canada and later moved to the U.S. They noted that prospective patients in West Virginia, where he now practices, would not know about such issues if they examined his online physician pages, as they do not include any information about the disciplinary matter in Saskatchewan. The news organization also noted that the complainant indicated a “ lack of consequences,” as he did not serve the suspension.
3. Accuracy: Regarding the concern that the article inaccurately focused on the charges, rather than the outcome of the charges, the news organization noted that the statements are supported by the documents on the College’s website, including the June 2022 document, as well as an article in a local newspaper at the time the outcome was issued.
4. Accuracy: Regarding the allegation that the information related to the centre’s hyperbaric oxygen chamber services was outdated or inaccurate, the news organization noted that the statement is drawn from the information outlined in the charges, which includes the following: “The website of Clear Health Inn stated with respect to the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for autism: ‘Inside the chamber, the person with Autism will inhale 100 percent pure oxygen to enhance the body’s natural healing tendencies.’”
5. Language: Regarding the complainant’s concerns about the use of “medical” language, the news organization stated that it relied on the wording used by the wellness centre in question based on the description of the charges by the College, as well as an article published by another news organization in which the centre in question appeared to use the word “clinic” in its own description by comparing its services to those of “other clinics.” The news organization stated, “we note that the Clear Health Inn itself, according to the Saskatchewan College’s charges against it, frequently used the word ‘medical.’ This was in fact part of the reason that he was charged over false advertising.” The news organization also referenced the centre’s description of a “comprehensive medical assessment” as well as a “Treatment regimen” that would be “overseen by licensed medical specialist physicians not naturopathic doctors,” based on the description of the charges.
6. Context: Regarding the complainant’s concern that the article did not state that his license was suspended retroactively, and that the matter therefore did not have an impact on his ability to practice, as he had simply chosen not to renew his license in the province, the news organization referred to the College’s website, which states: “The penalty order included a 4-month suspension (retroactive to November 2019), a written reprimand, completion of an ethics course and payment of costs in the amount of $85,377.87.”
7. Context: In response to the concern that the article gave a “false notion” that doctors can simply change jurisdictions and have a “fresh start,” the news organization explained: “We raise the issue of minimal oversight and incomplete sharing of information/advertising of information by authorities, which arose repeatedly in the hundreds of cases covered by reporters across the collaboration and in the separate case studies that we highlighted. In Dr. Cadili’s case you can see that in West Virginia, for example, a prospective patient in the U.S. would have no indicator, from his physician page, that he had a previous issue in Canada.” The news organization pointed to the websites of the West Virginia medical licensing body and the West Virginia University Health System on which he is listed.
8. Attribution: The news organization did not directly respond to the allegation that “partial quotes” were used or that the quotes from the lawyer were inappropriate.

In response to the allegation that journalists overstepped or acted inappropriately in trying to reach the complainant for comment, the news organization responded: “We did not do anything of the sort. We repeatedly made polite, fair efforts to contact him to ensure that we had exhausted opportunities to give him a fair right of reply, as is standard in such investigations. Nobody was ever asked where he lived.”

Discussion and findings:

In reviewing the matter, the NNC carefully considered the published statements in question and submissions from both parties, along with supporting material, in light of relevant journalistic standards and practices.

Accuracy Count 1:

Council considered the allegation that the article inaccurately described the disciplinary matter against the complainant as causing harm to his patients in his capacity as a physician, rather than in his capacity as a business owner.

In reviewing the article, the NNC observed a number of statements describing the nature of the complainant’s disciplinary matter. The article stated that the disciplinary action was in relation to the advertisement of him as a medical consultant for a business he had owned, and the impact of communicating such information to the public. The article also included comments from the complainant explaining his role in the business.

The NNC agreed with the news organization that the article did not mention malpractice with respect to the complainant’s case. Rather, it described the nature of the disciplinary proceedings as they related to the advertising of potential remedies or supplementary therapies for medical conditions in a non-medical facility.

The article also included accounts of disciplinary action against other doctors. These actions, for example, were not solely focused on medical practices, but included other professional activities, such as their conduct with staff. In this way, the scope of the article highlighted incidents of professional misconduct in the context of doctors who have left the jurisdictions in which they were found to have breached professional standards, rather than focusing specifically on incidents of medical malpractice.

Council found that the statements in the article informed readers of the nature of the charges and findings, as supported by the documents published on the College website. For this reason, Council did not find grounds to support a complaint about accuracy with respect to the allegation that the article inaccurately states that he had caused harm to his patients in his capacity as a physician.

Accuracy Count 2:

Council considered the allegation that the headline and overall framing of the article inaccurately suggested that the complainant made the choice to change jurisdictions in order to avoid scrutiny.

As the article identified, the article was the result of an international investigation that uncovered “how physicians across North America and Europe have sometimes skirted sanctions, avoided transparency and dodged accountability by moving elsewhere.” The article highlighted the fact that doctors with disciplinary matters of all kinds did not “appear to have faced major obstacles” when changing jurisdictions, and the lack of oversight and information sharing between jurisdictions and its impact on the public.

Council agreed that the complainant’s case may generally be understood to fall within the scope of the investigation. In particular, Council agreed with the news organization’s explanation that the facts outlined in the article show that the impact of his disciplinary matter in one jurisdiction did not have an impact on his ability to practice elsewhere. Council also accepted the fact that the official website in the jurisdiction where he currently practices contains no reference to the disciplinary matter.

That said, the allegation that an article has inaccurately reported, or reported without evidence, that an individual has deliberately acted to avoid accountability is a serious matter for consideration. The article’s headline states: “Bad Practice: Dozens of doctors jump borders to leave troubling pasts behind.” The article also reports, “Some [doctors] relocated from Canada to elsewhere after such incidents came to the attention of officials, while others moved to Canada from elsewhere.” This statement suggests that the doctors’ decisions to change jurisdictions occurred following the start of official investigations into the incidents described.

Council observed that there does not appear to be evidence, in the article or elsewhere, to suggest that the complainant’s decision to move jurisdictions was specifically motivated by the disciplinary matter. Rather, the fact that he had already changed jurisdictions, whether before or after the charges were laid, resulted in his having a “clean record” of conduct in the place he is currently practicing, which appears to align with the focus of the piece.

The NNC has consistently cautioned readers against only reading a headline or statements in isolation. Headlines are intended to capture the main focus of a piece in an accurate and concise manner, but they cannot provide the full story.

While the article does not explicitly state that the complainant’s motivation for moving jurisdictions was to avoid scrutiny, Council observed that the article’s headline could leave readers with the impression that the doctors whose incidents are described in the piece decided to relocate because of existing misconduct records or the fact that authorities began investigating allegations of misconduct against them. In light of this interpretation, Council strongly cautions against wording headlines or statements in a way that may be interpreted as ascribing motivation without clear evidence.

For the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed this part of the complaint about accuracy with the reservation that headlines and statements should avoid language that risks overgeneralizing or extrapolating beyond the evidence provided in the article.

Accuracy Count 3:

Regarding the allegation that the article focused on the initial charges, rather than the College’s findings and agreement for resolution, Council considered the statements in the article and the description of the matter on the College’s website. The complainant did not provide alternative or additional material to support the view that the outcome of the matter diverged from the information available on the College’s website.

Council found that the statements were supported by the published description of the charges and outcome of the matter, as published on the College’s website. For this reason, Council did not find grounds to support a complaint about accuracy.

Accuracy Count 4:

Regarding the allegation that the statements pertaining to the use of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber were inaccurate, Council observed that the statements in the article noted that the use of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber was advertised in the context of autism therapy, based on the description of the charges, which are publicly available.

The article does not appear to state that there were charges about the use of the chamber, but rather about the advertisements of services, such as the chamber, as scientifically-backed remedies to medical conditions. Council did not find grounds to support a complaint about accuracy in this instance.

Language:

Council considered the allegation that the article inaccurately used medical terminology to describe the complainant’s case. Specifically, the complainant raised concern with the description of the “wellness centre” the complainant owned as a “clinic,” and the individuals who received services as “patients,” when instead, the complainant argued, they were “customers.”

In reviewing the material provided by parties, Council observed that the College used the words “medical” and “treatment” numerous times in the document outlining the charges subject to the discipline committee. While the centre is described as a “private clinic” by the article in one statement, it is not described as a private “medical” clinic. In fact, multiple statements note that the centre was not a medical facility. The use of the term “treatment” appears to align with the language that had appeared on the centre’s website, as outlined in the charges and prior reporting.

Further, Council observed that it is not unusual to refer to individuals undergoing medical treatment, such as for cancer, as “patients,” even if the individuals were not “treated” at the centre in question. The article also used the term “consumers” when referring to people who might seek out the services advertised by the centre. Further, the complainant is quoted as referring to people as “patients” in one instance. 

For these reasons, Council did not find grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards related to language use in this instance.

Context Count 1:

The complainant alleged the article lacked context because it did not note that the suspension of his license was “retroactive.” The complainant stated he was not suspended or prevented from practicing there, but rather chose not to renew his license prior to when the College investigated the matter because he had already moved out of province.  

Council agreed that the article does not state that the suspension was retroactive. That said, a suspension was nonetheless issued as part of the outcome of the charges, to which he admitted, as detailed on the College’s website. 

Relevant information allows readers to understand an issue in context and guards against misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In this case, Council determined that including the additional information would not appear to alter the interpretation or accuracy of the description of the complainant’s case, as the article highlights how doctors who have been subject to disciplinary measures in one jurisdiction do not appear to be prevented from practicing medicine elsewhere. Council found that not including this additional information about the timeline of the suspension did not indicate a breach of standards.

Context Count 2:

Council considered the complainant’s allegation that insufficient context in the article may give readers a false notion that doctors can simply change jurisdictions and “have a fresh start practicing medicine,” given that, the complainant pointed out, physicians’ entire practice histories are reviewed when changing jurisdictions in North America.

Council reviewed the statements in the article, including quoted statements from the complainant and the West Virginia Board of Medicine, as well as information available on the West Virginia Board of Medicine’s website. 

Council observed that the article appeared to outline the steps involved in the complainant’s case when he applied for his medical licenses in other jurisdictions, as described by the complainant. In this way, the article provided context about the process by which he would have obtained a license elsewhere. 

Ultimately, the article highlighted the fact that prospective patients in the complainant’s current jurisdiction would have no information about a past disciplinary procedure if they only looked at the records according to the current jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Council did not find grounds to support a lack of context about the process described by the complainant in this case.  

Attribution:

The complainant alleged that his own quotes were incomplete. He also expressed concern that quoted statements from a lawyer that are included in the piece do not have a direct connection to his case, and mislead readers about the nature and impact of his case.

With respect to the concern that quotes were used out of context, the complainant did not provide grounds to support the allegation that incomplete quotes misled readers about the content of his comments. In fact, the article included numerous quoted statements from the complainant to inform readers about his view of the situation at hand. 

Journalists and editors have the prerogative to make decisions about which comments are relevant to the story at hand. While individuals who make statements on the record may wish to see specific statements or more of their views reflected in a piece, that in itself is not a breach of journalistic standards.

With respect to the quotes provided by the lawyer, it appears that the individual is offering his professional opinion on the larger issues. The lawyer is first identified in the context of a different doctor whose conduct is detailed in another part of the article. He is described as “an attorney representing more than 40 of the physician’s victims.”

In this case, the quotes from the attorney appear to express a particular perspective on the issues more generally, and do not directly comment on the complainant’s case. They are clearly attributed to the individual expressing this view, which is aligned with standard journalistic practice. For these reasons, Council did not find grounds to support a complaint about improper use of quotes.

Newsgathering practices:

While the NNC generally assesses matters related to published statements, it is standard journalistic practice to ensure that an individual who may be the subject of allegations has reasonable opportunity to comment. In this case, the complainant did not provide evidence to support grounds that a specific journalistic standard had been breached, and Council therefore found no evidence of a breach of journalistic standards on this point.

Summary:

Council recognized that the complainant took issue with how the disciplinary panel handled the situation, and expressed his opinion that the College was “overly eager to create a narrative that was not there,” as he is quoted as stating in the article. That said, the article was largely informed by publicly available documentation, and the complainant’s views appear to be reflected with the use of a significant number of quoted statements. 

While Council recognizes that the complainant may take issue with how the disciplinary matter was pursued and handled by the College, that is a matter related to a separate professional body, and not a matter of journalistic standards. In this case, the article relied on official records of proceedings and comments from the complainant, as well as others, to inform readers about the complainant’s case as well as the larger issues at hand.

For the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed the majority of the complaint about accuracy, language, context, and attribution, and dismissed one part of the complaint with the reservation that articles should avoid language in the headline, or elsewhere, that may be interpreted as ascribing motivation without clear evidence.